Hofman v. Hofman
| Decision Date | 06 November 1907 |
| Docket Number | No. 6,035.,6,035. |
| Citation | 82 N.E. 477,40 Ind.App. 476 |
| Parties | HOFMAN v. HOFMAN. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Thos. B. Buskirk, Judge.
Action for divorce by William G. Hofman against Hannah Hofman. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed, with directions.
Wm. J. Throop, for appellant. Will J. Buskirk, for appellee.
The appellee sued appellant in the court below for divorce. The record shows the complaint to have been filed on the 22d day of May, 1905, and was in two paragraphs. The only grounds for divorce set up in the first paragraph of the complaint is abandonment, which the complaint alleges took place on or about July 1, 1903. According to the transcript, the second paragraph of the complaint averred that the plaintiff and defendant were duly married on the 29th day of December, 1905, something like seven months subsequent to the filing of the complaint, and it charges that appellant and appellee lived together as husband and wife until the 1st day of July, 1903, a year and a half prior to the date of their marriage. The marital wrongs set forth in this paragraph of the appellee's complaint as the grounds of his right to a divorce are cruel and inhuman treatment, which is alleged to have consisted of an ungovernable temper on the part of the appellant, and her continual nagging appellee in regard to money matters, and it is averred that the appellant had hindered appellee from making large sums of money by refusing to join him in the conveyance of real estate owned by him, and that there existed an incompatibility of temper between the parties. The appellant's demurrer to this complaint was overruled, and the ruling of the court assigned as error here.
This complaint is glaringly insufficient. So far as it relies upon abandonment, it is shown upon its face that the statutory period of two years had not elapsed when the complaint was filed, and, so far as it relies on cruel treatment, the only issuable fact averred is that appellant refused to join with appellee in the execution of deeds for his real estate. The statute giving to a married woman an interest in her husband's real estate, in the conveyance of which she has not joined, was intended for her benefit and her protection, and if, by standing upon her right under this law, she is guilty of a marital offense against her husband that would entitle him to a divorce, it would be better that the law...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clark v. Clark, 6414
... ... doing, and that the same does not constitute extreme cruelty ... under the statute." (See Hofman v. Hofman, 40 ... Ind.App. 476, 82 N.E. 477.) The findings of fact, conclusions ... of law and decree show a copy thereof was received by counsel ... ...